Re: Ancient sites and bodily sensations

In article <3nj23sF1n3t7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
janet <janetifimust@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nuala wrote:
[snip lots of stuff; go read the thread]
> >> There are times when one must, for the sake of quick action.

> > <awkward ;->
> > 'Must'?

> Yes. At least according to my lights, I "must" act to save, say,
> one of my children from an oncoming car, without considering all
> options.

Which is an understandable stance, but still a choice. So why not use the
word, Will, and see the magic more clearly?

> >> After discussions of living an ethical life (yes, yes, I know,
> >> but...)

> > But I've just admitted, freely and with a glad heart, to being
> > unethical a fair percentage of the time. I recognise professional
> > ethics and I abide by them. I recognise Blood-kin, Tribe, and Family,
> > and I choose *not* to be ethical because it might limit my choices,
> > and I will not knowingly give up choices as far as Blood-kin, Tribe or
> > Family are concerned.

> And how is that not a personal ethic?

I think you were closer with 'Code'.

And I would say that since I have[1] both a professional Code of Ethics
and Code of Honour, this isn't the same at a level that I'm obviously
struggling to communicate.

I'm going to say, 'military language' again, and teach myself more Gaelic.

[snip]
> >> students often ask, "But you can't do that for everything! You'd
> >> never get out of bed!"

> > I assure you that not only am I fully dressed (shush!:), I've also
> > been working this morning.

> I know. And I submit that you did not in fact deal with each and
> every decision in the manner ascribed, that is, by taking the
> process of, say, brushing teeth back to first principles of action.

Do I take it that you wish to extend the sacred and profane discussion? ;-)

> >> And of course one does not examine everything from this point of
> >> view.

> > I see.

> > How do you know which bits to examine then?

> Sometimes, one does not and that's problematic.

So: if we are accurately to grok ourselves, we should examine everything?
To be on the safe side? <innocent grin>

> However, life, learning and practice are the best answers I can
> give.

So what place does, how did you describe it, 'first principles of action'
play in your mundane life?

[snip]
> > Is it ever 'ok' <chuckles> to decide, implicitly and explicitly, to
> > trust oneself because it gives a faster, practically spontaneous,
> > highly congruent way of being?

> Yes. In essence, that's what this is doing - I listen and learn but
> in the end, I must (yes, I know) trust myself and my decisions.

Can I tempt you to go with 'choose to trust yourself', to see how it feels?

<cries of 'Get Thee behind me' are heard from the South ;->

> In other situations, see above - rescuing a child from an oncoming
> car is done on trust of one's previous decisions.

> We are almost at the habit/ritual discussion that happened... one
> night over the weekend. :}

Missed it. So either I was lurking in the garden (lurk? moi?) or I was
similarly elsewhere.

Lead away. <g>

> >>>> It'd be dangerous as all get out, though, I'd think.

> >>> In what way dangerous?

> >> The unexamined life coupled with naked mind...

> > 'But now consider what it would be like for them to be released from
> > their bonds and cured of their illusions, if such a thing could happen
> > to them. When one of them was freed and forced suddenly to stand up
> > and turn his head and look up towards the light, doing all these
> > things he would be in pain, and because he was dazzled he would not be
> > able to see the things of which he had earlier seen the shadows. What
> > do you think he would reply if someone said to him that what he had
> > seen earlier was empty illusion, but that now he is rather closer to
> > reality, and turned to things that are more real, and sees more
> > correctly? Don't you think he would be at a loss and would think that
> > the things he saw earlier were truer than the things he was now being
> > shown?' - Aristocles, Allegory of the Cave

> Why do you associate the examined life with bonds?

Several reasons:

You quoted Socrates, I quoted Plato, or possibly still Socrates. <g>

Also, the examined life requires a sacrifice, in terms of loss, death,
time, and so forth. Humans, or so I have observed, like to avoid such
things. Some will even forego the pleasure of loss by refusing to
accept the attachment. SO to what, in the place of such attachments,
are they anchoring themselves?

And now it gets *really* interesting...

1 2 3, 1 2 3...

> > [snip]
> >>>>> I'm the only person I know with a leather flail on her alter.

> >>>> You're not the only one I know, though. And I know lots of people
> >>>> with pointy things on them, as well.

> >>> Ach, I've got pointy things and any number of other objects too.
> <g>

> >> No, really? :)

> > Is it too late to try that innocent look again?

> Yes. :)

Shall I try to deny the four foot *** sword at the top of the stairs
then, at least?

Oh, arse! <wg>

> >>>>> And I may, or may not, have misspelt that. <g>

> >>>> Oh, don't start :)

> >>> And why 'should' I not?

> >> I didn't use that word :P

> >> :)

> > Ooh! Did too!

> > Which is why we're having this bleedin' conversation! ;-p

> No, we are having it because we are us, not because we *have* to. :)

> > On 29 Aug in uk.religion.pagan, janet <janetifimust@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> My issues should not cause me to forget about friends.

> Ah, THERE I used it but not in the previous bit. :)

I think you'll find that *I* used inverted commas though. :^)



NP: Linkin Park, One Step Closer

Now Channelling: <eg>

~Love and blessings~

--
~Phenobarbidoll~
'Occasionally I am callous and strange.'

'Come play my game, I'll test ya'

.